collegiumfandomcom-20200214-history
Diversity
'Diversity is the positive value of difference. Most neutrally, a numerical positivity, but in political and other contestedness, a valuative, qualitative or moral positivity. It is a synonym of ‘variety’ and ‘richness’ but has typically the meaning of a ‘variety’ when it is perceived as something good, and less so when variety is perceived as something bad. '''For example, a doctor is more likely to refer to a variety of diseases than a diversity of diseases. He will hardly refer to a richness of diseases. He will however refer to a diversity of solutions or therapeutic options. Conversely, centuries ago ‘diversity’ had negative meanings (such as ‘wickedness’ and ‘perversity’). Again, in latter days it is quite chiefly used to refer to the benefits of an apparent selection, thus ‘diversity’ has taken on a usage as a synonym of ‘richness’; with the common attachment of being a ‘productive diversity’—in the sense of ‘many irons in the fire’—such as in a diversity of productive features in competition or cooperation (competition itself is unavoidably a form of ‘co-operation’, which is not to say a ‘cooperation’). ‘Competition’ is in itself is as neutral as co-operation, since indeed humans can compete or co-operate in violent, and ''needless to say harmful acts, and there is typically nothing positive about the co-operation of diseased cells. Diversity literally means difference. When it is used as a contrast or addition to equality, it is about recognising individual as well as group differences, treating people as individuals, and placing positive value on diversity in the community and in the workforce. — London Deanery, 2012 When used excessively, ‘diversity’ is reified and as meaningless as it is over-valorised. If diversity is a neutral concept, the question isn't if diversity is good, but a diversity of what? Taken away from its given connotation of ‘richness’, diversity is just a variable and not a value in itself. Indeed, in many cases ‘diversity’ is valorised when there is no benefit of doing so, but instead harm, indeed the same is frequently enough done with the concept of speed, for example. There's nothing either good or bad about speed in itself, since it can be the speed of your losing or the speed of your learning. Speed is not inherently a value, but only contextually so, but it is inherently a variable. Speed can add value, it can be valued, but in itself it is simply a relativity. Something is fast only relative to something that is less so — it simply branches out from the feeling of a human of something going faster than another thing, like a leopard compared to a human on foot. A leopard doesn't run with speed compared to the speed of light. He's very slow. You see here how the concept is neutral, and is only a reification from the experience of the human. Diversity is similar. It seems though easier to argue that the universe "values" diversity, than arguing the same about speed. The perceived entities of the universe seem to be in constant differentiation, as one thing becomes in perception different from another, in material transformation, and indeed, historically, apparent diversification. It is no doubt this that has influenced the context of diversity as something that overlaps with survival and the good. Indeed, to add to our realisation that diversity typically refers to positive difference (and that's positive in more than one way, be it increasing variation or valuation of something as good), we may accurately state that ‘diversity’ is typically enough a concept referring to the positive effects of variety. What gets done in error however, commonly, is to think that because variety can be positive, all variety must be positive. This is the result of either lazy thinking, or something like being too enthusiastic. Irrationality in either case. Simple variety is not necessarily good, since a variety of diseases for example is not so. A fresh oatmeal is regarded as better than a buffet of spoiled food, typically. Asking someone to bring variety from the liquor store can lead to a selection of poorly tasting wines, while asking for a single top choice will all else equal lead to just that. «Reinventing Money», about skewed priority of metrics: "Two key structure-related variables — Diversity (the existence of different types of agents acting as “nodes” in the network) and Interconnectivity (number of pathways between agents) — play a central role in both efficiency and resilience but in the opposite direction. In general, a system’s resilience is enhanced by more diversity and more connections, because there are more channels to fall back on in times of trouble or change. Efficiency, on the other hand, increases through streamlining, which usually means reducing diversity and connectivity. The main point is that nature does not select for maximum efficiency, but for an optimal balance between the two opposing poles of efficiency and resilience. Because both are indispensable for long-term sustainability and health, the healthiest flow systems are those that maintain an optimal balance between these two opposing pulls. Conversely, an excess of either attribute leads to systemic instability. Too much efficiency leads to brittleness and too much resilience leads to stagnation; the former is caused by too little diversity and connectivity and the latter by too much diversity and connectivity." Rhizomata Difference; Differentiation; Diversification; Diversifying